Lines & Splines goes the way of hot-metal type

May 12, 2002 5:49 PM

Lines & Splines goes the way of hot-metal type Andy Crewdson shuts down Lines & Splines. Beyond the stated reasons, speculation as to why would of course be as improper as any use of Arial.
posted by joeclark (24 comments total)

What a shame this is. Lines & Splines was one of the most asthetically pleasing websites about type ever to have been. Plus, the content was always worth reading?it does indeed make you wonder exactly why Crewdson has shut the site down. (Perhaps he was just tired of it?)

At least he ?[has] some ideas for new things? in the future.
posted by tepidmonkey at 6:18 PM on May 12, 2002

Pardon the question marks in that comment; they were ment to be a dash in the first place and quotation marks in the last two instances.
posted by tepidmonkey at 6:18 PM on May 12, 2002

?
posted by fuq at 6:24 PM on May 12, 2002

I knew Andy Crewdson when I attended Pyle Middle School in Maryland over 10 years ago.

And even with that really close connection, I have no idea why the site went down.
posted by jragon at 6:58 PM on May 12, 2002

I like Arial, for web use. Helvetica just looks funny; I can spot it immediately.
So there.

But anyway, exactly why would speculation be improper?
posted by Su at 7:06 PM on May 12, 2002

Well, I've been enjoying his site since it opened, and I look forward to what ever he has in store... good luck Andy, you rock!
posted by silusGROK at 7:06 PM on May 12, 2002

Aside from needing a change of pace, for a number of reasons the format of the site no longer suits me very well.
So he's tired and moving on. Hey, it happens. Good luck and Godspeed.
posted by darukaru at 7:17 PM on May 12, 2002

It's a shame because L&S really was a dandy site, but if this will free Andy up for something new then I'm optimistic. Good luck, sir.
posted by will at 7:26 PM on May 12, 2002

Weird... I saw this eariler today through randomwebsite -- then again, I was sitting hitting random sites for nearly an hour, so I was bound to hit it. Too bad though :\ I'm not much of a font/typography person, but that site made me want to be.
posted by mkn at 8:02 PM on May 12, 2002

As an addict for type design, im sad to see his wonderful site go. I hope he brings us something just as exciting in the future.
posted by ewwgene at 8:28 PM on May 12, 2002

Good luck on your next adventure, Andy.

Anyone have any sites to help fill the void? Microsoft's Typography news page isn't bad for links, but it doesn't have any editorial content.
posted by Monk at 11:42 PM on May 12, 2002

Speculation is such an ugly word.

As for alternates, there's the rest of the previous link, Typographer.com, U&Lc at the ITC web site, and Thinkbox, by Typebox. They each have their high points, but I haven't seen any of them get some of the sometimes-scary detail that Andy gave.
posted by Su at 12:06 AM on May 13, 2002

The next issue of Print feature this essay on typography weblogs. Lots o' links.
posted by dmo at 12:35 AM on May 13, 2002

Whoops. Typographer.com, is uh...obviously located at www.typographer.com.
posted by Su at 12:36 AM on May 13, 2002

The next issue of Print feature this essay on typography weblogs. Lots o' links.
posted by dmo at 12:46 AM on May 13, 2002

I wouldn't be surprised if that article was one of the reasons that L&S was closed, although Crewdson has been talking about other projects for a while.

It's a pretty self serving article (the very first link is to the author's own four five weblogs) and focuses more on typoblog authors than what they are saying. The article itself claims that Crewdson hates publicity, but it's being published in Print, which is probably one of the most widely circulated design magazines.

Hell, what kind of article uses the work "Flashturbation" and the phrase "Georgia and Verdana, natch?"

Oh, and no matter what this article claims, textism is not a "typoblog." Textism rarely mentions type (and, in my opinion, it uses type pretty poorly too, just look at that header image).

Yeah.
posted by itchyrobot at 10:04 AM on May 13, 2002

sorry, that third part shoud read:

Hell, what kind of article uses the word "Flashturbation" and the phrase "Georgia and Verdana, natch?
posted by itchyrobot at 12:45 PM on May 13, 2002

What kind of article uses such terminology? A well-written article, I assume. And when I wrote the piece (last summer!), Textism was heavily typographical. And as the story explained, Dean Allen was a professional book designer before he decamped for France. Although one assumes he became a tad campier once arriving in France. And if you want a version without links, may I suggest the print Print? Note to others who can't read simple English: Crewdson wouldn't be interviewed for the Print piece. By that time, he was at least consistent in his psychological dualism (run a public Web site, won't talk about it).
posted by joeclark at 3:08 PM on May 13, 2002

Exactly how does running a public web site and not talking about it constitute psychological dualism, or is it that you're also a psychologist(wow!), and just so good that you can figure out someone's particular neuroses from a bunch of text that has near nothing to do with them personally?
posted by Su at 3:50 PM on May 13, 2002

It seems plausible to me that someone would want to contribute something on the web without having a lot of attention focused on them personally. It's not like Andy was breaking any laws or abusing the public trust. Why not respect his privacy?

Oh, I forgot, you're Joe Clark.
posted by rodii at 4:29 PM on May 13, 2002

The kooky thing, Su and rodii, is that A. Crewdson had promoted himself and his site in interviews before. Then he stopped. Now he's stopped the site. Everyone has a right to change his or her mind. Everyone in public view can expect to have such decisions commented on. If you don't want to get blogged (or written about in magazines), don't post. But I'm sure you're just the gentlest people, Su and rodii, and you're just trying to be helpful here.
posted by joeclark at 7:55 PM on May 13, 2002

I think it's cute how you've repeatedly responded to people's comments, without actually saying anything about what they said.

Further, you've circumspectly declined to comment on me calling you out for speculating, which this very post, written by you^** calls inappropriate, and also questioning your specious psychological evaluation(maybe he just didn't want to talk to you), Itchyrobot calling the article self-serving, and Rodii effectively calling you an egomaniac. While you defend yourself on a minor point by saying the article was written last summer, I have been unable to find any such date reference on that page, other than that it's being published in Print sometime in 2002, and that the page was updated ten days ago.
And while you did all this dancing, you managed to work in another self-compliment re: the article being well-written.

Yes, people are allowed to change their minds, as you said. And yes, their actions can be commented upon. Commentary, however, is not nearly the same thing as speculation. I'll pass on providing dictionary links; it's just demeaning.

^**We'll add here that contradiction isnt the same thing as changing your mind, either.

But yes, I am gentle and helpful. The only thing I'm trying to help with here, is pointing out a pompous ass. Sometimes, that particular activity can't be handled gently, though.
As neither I nor Matt are interested in flamewars, I'm done with this.
posted by Su at 9:20 PM on May 13, 2002

Finally! We get rid of Su. In any event, the publishing deal was that Print had first rights. So I waited till I had the magazine in my hands before I uploaded the article. Only some of my print-publication articles carry authored-on dates in their Web versions. As for the rest of the allegations, I can't be bothered. I will go so far as to point out again that making public remarks about other public remarks hardly constitutes an invasion of privacy-- certainly a curious allegation from someone posting to a public site. If you don't want to get talked about, don't post. Now's your big chance.
posted by joeclark at 5:06 AM on May 14, 2002

After purchasing the print version of Print I discovered that the article is slightly different (e.g. no instances of the word "natch" could be found).

It's true that since the article was written over a year ago it may no longer be completely accurate which may have contributed to my issues with it. I can't say that I have ever consistently read Textism since I try to avoid the truly pompous. Looking back at past Textism posts, Allen does seem to mention type more than he currently does, but I would hardly call it a "typeblog." Certainly no more of a typeblog than Kottke or xBlog.

I don't think that this is about an invasion of privacy, but more about an excess of publicity. This is pure speculation since I don't personally know Crewdson.

Let me just give you one example of why I felt it to be self serving. The article contains this sentence: "I managed to conduct an E-mail interview for one of my Weblogs in 2000." This is conveniently linked to an online version of the interview. You would think that the hypertext link would be made with the words "E-mail interview" or at least "E-mail interview for one of my Weblogs", but instead it links with "one of my Weblogs." It seems that you are obsessed with the fact that you have these weblogs instead of what they contain (which coincidentaly seems to be the exact opposite of Crewdson's approach).
posted by itchyrobot at 9:39 AM on May 14, 2002